robin_anne_reid (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
robin_anne_reid) wrote2007-07-23 06:13 pm
robin_anne_reid) wrote2007-07-23 06:13 pm
Academic Privilege
Academic Privilege
I used this term, or related ones, in my recent posts about academics in the fan debate. I decided to look for a useful site or two to help explain the concept. The best one I found was to a book published online (I may assign some bits in future graduate classes!): Power in Higher Education
First published in 1998 on the web at http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98tk/
Brian MartinThis link takes you to a title page, with chapter links, and links to Martin's web site, list of publications, etc.
The author's summary: Tied Knowledge is a book designed to provide a practical conceptual framework for understanding the dynamics of higher education. Using examples primarily from Australia, Britain and the United States, it examines power structures both outside and inside academia and how they interact and shape knowledge. These structures include hierarchy, disciplines, patriarchy, the state, capitalism and professions. Academia as a system of power itself both resists and accommodates these other power systems. The key resource used by the academics to promote their interests is the power to create and legitimate knowledge. By its form and content, this knowledge is tied to both the interests of academics and to those of powerful groups in society.
The chapter that caught my attention deals with the concept of academic beliefs including that of academic privilege: Chapter 7.
Quote: Tenured academics are privileged in a number of ways: they have security of employment, a comfortable income, a stimulating occupation, periodic opportunities for travel, social prestige, and considerable leeway to determine the conditions of their own work. (Undoubtedly academics are not as privileged as many of them believe they ought to be.) An important academic belief is that these privileges are necessary to the achievement of academic work.
Associated with this basic belief are beliefs about subsidiary points, justified on a variety of grounds. Tenure is claimed to be necessary to protect academic freedom. A good salary is claimed to be necessary because otherwise top scholars would leave for more lucrative employment. Study leave is claimed to be necessary to maintain intellectual stimulation. It is claimed that only academics are qualified to make decisions on academic matters. There are many and varied defences of academic privileges.
The beliefs about the need for academic privileges are routinely used in justifying the privileges.
While many academic privileges are justified on the grounds of necessity, many academics also believe that academic privilege is deserved. It is taken for granted that intellectual ability and performance - also taken for granted - should be rewarded by special privileges.
Beliefs about the necessity and justice of academic privilege do not square with the perspective in which the claims of academics are based on tying knowledge to powerful groups. Privilege is far from necessary for intellectual work. It simply makes life more comfortable. The image of the struggling artist is appropriate here. Many artists, including freelance writers, have little security, low wages, and few opportunities for 'broadening their horizons'. This is basically because artists outside the major commercial empires have little collective leverage. Anyone can write a novel; no credentials are needed. Associated with this exploitative situation is the belief that creative artistic work thrives on hardship: a soft secure career would shrivel the critical impulse. Logically, the same could be said of academics, but exactly the opposite conclusion is drawn. In this case, beliefs become popular because they justify the reality rather than because they explain it.
Academics can be quite fierce in their defence of academic privilege. For example, when the Australian government cut back on academic study leave (also called sabbatical), many arguments were brought to bear in protesting against this move. The arguments each emphasised why academics needed study leave. No attempt was made to expand the domain of privilege by arguing for example that manual workers need periodic occupational leave to recover physically and to rekindle interest, or that mothers need leave from housework and child-rearing. Study leave is seen as a special, academic privilege. To extend it too widely would be to weaken the status of academics.
The Australian academic protest against cutbacks in study leave was weak and unsuccessful. It might have had more chance if alliances had been built with other occupational groups based on demands for occupational leave for all. But building such alliances was quite at variance with the professional self-image held by academics as a 'higher occupation'.
A side note: I know that the same "tenure" system does not exist at all universities, not even in the U.S. Martin teaches in Australia, and his book deals with issues relating to the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. I'd be glad to learn more about the system in other countries; I gather from one friend's entry that there are universities in the U.K. where, if you more or less meet certain criteria, you have a sort of de facto tenure (i.e. are not likely to be fired except in extreme cases). (I'll note that in the U.S., "reductions in force" can result in tenured faculty being fired--it happened at my father's university during the seventies--and more and more with post-tenure review and calls for ending tenure taking place, it's unlikely that the idea of tenure as completely sacrosanct will continue in to the future unchanged. I'm not sure it was always as ironclad everywhere as some claim, but that's just my doubts about Golden Age rhetoric; I have no proof).
So. When I am talking about academic privilege, it doesn't mean that life is perfect or that other oppressions might not affect one; instead, the concept of academic privilege notes that, compared to others (and especially compared to the growing--in the U.S.--ranks of temporary teachers hired on in increasing numbers the last few decades as tenure-track jobs shift in number) the academically privileged have it better within the system.
Nor does this concept mean all institutions are equal or faculty equally privileged: I know of faculty at universities whose budgets cover all their travel to conferences. At my university, the department can budget about $400 a year for travel, and in recent years (the last few), it's possible to get a few hundred extra from a Faculty Development grant and perhaps from the Dean's office, if you can make the case. My best year, I think I managed to get about $1200 (I went to four conferences, including one in England that year).
But still, relative to graduate students, instructors, and some of the junior faculty here, I am much privileged because I have some funding, and I also have learned over the years how to get any extra funds lying around.
The useful discussions of academic privilege don't come from comparing one's institution or position to all those who have it better, but also to those who have it much worse in the system. My assumptions in the post that raised some controversy were that the longer faculty members are in the system, the more privilege they have; tenured faculty have more privilege that tenure-track or people working in non-tenured jobs; even tenure-track faculty have more privilege than the instructors/graduate students/etc. paid by the class (in the U.S. a lot of range in benefits occurs; I know that's not true elsewhere). There are differences between disciplines and colleges (one of my favorite stories is about a new faculty hire in the College of Business explaining carefully to me how free market economics means that Business faculty are just worth more/paid more than English professors because he could be out in the market, making gazillions--I'm afraid he didn't appreciate my point that I could be making gazillions from writing best selling novels--and that what we were paid for is not to avoid out wealthy life outside the system (both of which were speculative or even fantasy) but to teach university students). It's complex, but there are relative levels of privilege cutting across a range of matrices of disciplines, genders, class, ethnicity, regions, countries, etc. I do not think that raising the issue must be read as an insult although I understand that such an "accusation" is often taken as one.
It is also possible to be relatively privileged in one area (in my case, whiteness and middle-class) and still face disadvantages in other areas (female, queer). And I'm sure that it's possible to only see the relative advantages/privileges of others in the system and not their disadvantages, which I admit I tend to see when looking at most senior male faculty most of the time. That may be one of my blinders.
I used this term, or related ones, in my recent posts about academics in the fan debate. I decided to look for a useful site or two to help explain the concept. The best one I found was to a book published online (I may assign some bits in future graduate classes!): Power in Higher Education
First published in 1998 on the web at http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98tk/
Brian MartinThis link takes you to a title page, with chapter links, and links to Martin's web site, list of publications, etc.
The author's summary: Tied Knowledge is a book designed to provide a practical conceptual framework for understanding the dynamics of higher education. Using examples primarily from Australia, Britain and the United States, it examines power structures both outside and inside academia and how they interact and shape knowledge. These structures include hierarchy, disciplines, patriarchy, the state, capitalism and professions. Academia as a system of power itself both resists and accommodates these other power systems. The key resource used by the academics to promote their interests is the power to create and legitimate knowledge. By its form and content, this knowledge is tied to both the interests of academics and to those of powerful groups in society.
The chapter that caught my attention deals with the concept of academic beliefs including that of academic privilege: Chapter 7.
Quote: Tenured academics are privileged in a number of ways: they have security of employment, a comfortable income, a stimulating occupation, periodic opportunities for travel, social prestige, and considerable leeway to determine the conditions of their own work. (Undoubtedly academics are not as privileged as many of them believe they ought to be.) An important academic belief is that these privileges are necessary to the achievement of academic work.
Associated with this basic belief are beliefs about subsidiary points, justified on a variety of grounds. Tenure is claimed to be necessary to protect academic freedom. A good salary is claimed to be necessary because otherwise top scholars would leave for more lucrative employment. Study leave is claimed to be necessary to maintain intellectual stimulation. It is claimed that only academics are qualified to make decisions on academic matters. There are many and varied defences of academic privileges.
The beliefs about the need for academic privileges are routinely used in justifying the privileges.
While many academic privileges are justified on the grounds of necessity, many academics also believe that academic privilege is deserved. It is taken for granted that intellectual ability and performance - also taken for granted - should be rewarded by special privileges.
Beliefs about the necessity and justice of academic privilege do not square with the perspective in which the claims of academics are based on tying knowledge to powerful groups. Privilege is far from necessary for intellectual work. It simply makes life more comfortable. The image of the struggling artist is appropriate here. Many artists, including freelance writers, have little security, low wages, and few opportunities for 'broadening their horizons'. This is basically because artists outside the major commercial empires have little collective leverage. Anyone can write a novel; no credentials are needed. Associated with this exploitative situation is the belief that creative artistic work thrives on hardship: a soft secure career would shrivel the critical impulse. Logically, the same could be said of academics, but exactly the opposite conclusion is drawn. In this case, beliefs become popular because they justify the reality rather than because they explain it.
Academics can be quite fierce in their defence of academic privilege. For example, when the Australian government cut back on academic study leave (also called sabbatical), many arguments were brought to bear in protesting against this move. The arguments each emphasised why academics needed study leave. No attempt was made to expand the domain of privilege by arguing for example that manual workers need periodic occupational leave to recover physically and to rekindle interest, or that mothers need leave from housework and child-rearing. Study leave is seen as a special, academic privilege. To extend it too widely would be to weaken the status of academics.
The Australian academic protest against cutbacks in study leave was weak and unsuccessful. It might have had more chance if alliances had been built with other occupational groups based on demands for occupational leave for all. But building such alliances was quite at variance with the professional self-image held by academics as a 'higher occupation'.
A side note: I know that the same "tenure" system does not exist at all universities, not even in the U.S. Martin teaches in Australia, and his book deals with issues relating to the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. I'd be glad to learn more about the system in other countries; I gather from one friend's entry that there are universities in the U.K. where, if you more or less meet certain criteria, you have a sort of de facto tenure (i.e. are not likely to be fired except in extreme cases). (I'll note that in the U.S., "reductions in force" can result in tenured faculty being fired--it happened at my father's university during the seventies--and more and more with post-tenure review and calls for ending tenure taking place, it's unlikely that the idea of tenure as completely sacrosanct will continue in to the future unchanged. I'm not sure it was always as ironclad everywhere as some claim, but that's just my doubts about Golden Age rhetoric; I have no proof).
So. When I am talking about academic privilege, it doesn't mean that life is perfect or that other oppressions might not affect one; instead, the concept of academic privilege notes that, compared to others (and especially compared to the growing--in the U.S.--ranks of temporary teachers hired on in increasing numbers the last few decades as tenure-track jobs shift in number) the academically privileged have it better within the system.
Nor does this concept mean all institutions are equal or faculty equally privileged: I know of faculty at universities whose budgets cover all their travel to conferences. At my university, the department can budget about $400 a year for travel, and in recent years (the last few), it's possible to get a few hundred extra from a Faculty Development grant and perhaps from the Dean's office, if you can make the case. My best year, I think I managed to get about $1200 (I went to four conferences, including one in England that year).
But still, relative to graduate students, instructors, and some of the junior faculty here, I am much privileged because I have some funding, and I also have learned over the years how to get any extra funds lying around.
The useful discussions of academic privilege don't come from comparing one's institution or position to all those who have it better, but also to those who have it much worse in the system. My assumptions in the post that raised some controversy were that the longer faculty members are in the system, the more privilege they have; tenured faculty have more privilege that tenure-track or people working in non-tenured jobs; even tenure-track faculty have more privilege than the instructors/graduate students/etc. paid by the class (in the U.S. a lot of range in benefits occurs; I know that's not true elsewhere). There are differences between disciplines and colleges (one of my favorite stories is about a new faculty hire in the College of Business explaining carefully to me how free market economics means that Business faculty are just worth more/paid more than English professors because he could be out in the market, making gazillions--I'm afraid he didn't appreciate my point that I could be making gazillions from writing best selling novels--and that what we were paid for is not to avoid out wealthy life outside the system (both of which were speculative or even fantasy) but to teach university students). It's complex, but there are relative levels of privilege cutting across a range of matrices of disciplines, genders, class, ethnicity, regions, countries, etc. I do not think that raising the issue must be read as an insult although I understand that such an "accusation" is often taken as one.
It is also possible to be relatively privileged in one area (in my case, whiteness and middle-class) and still face disadvantages in other areas (female, queer). And I'm sure that it's possible to only see the relative advantages/privileges of others in the system and not their disadvantages, which I admit I tend to see when looking at most senior male faculty most of the time. That may be one of my blinders.
How'd He Get Tenure?
(Anonymous) 2007-07-24 01:27 am (UTC)(link)What I find so odd with the system is how the goalposts shift over time. Thus I know many assistant professors who have published about 4 times more than tenured faculty twice their age at the same institution and in the same dept, yet who honestly might not get tenure since they haven't done "enough" by today's standards. It certainly creates significant tension. Indeed, in some depts it's a recipe for crap, since people work so hard to get the tenure-track job, then so hard to get tenure, resenting so many people along the way, that they're either burnt out, bitter, or crazed by the time they do get tenure. And thus many a dept. can be run by those who stopped caring, researching, or thinking years back.
And yet as I type this, I'm about to pack my bags for a week's trip to Vancouver. Two weeks ago, I was on Cape Cod for a week, and before that a two week stint in Europe. My bank account may be almost empty as a result, but for someone working in America (ie: land of 6 day-a-year holidays) to have such time to play with is pretty sweet. And I'm white, male, hetero, and middle-class, so I avoid the rank discrimination that faces many in the field (even if it angers me to see it, I'm not personally suffering under it per se). I'm also Canadian, so the occasional student tells me that if I don't like Bush I should just go back to Canada, but in the annals of history, I'm pretty sure that this ranks low on the charts of discrimination.
Canadians are known to complain when we have things so good -- universal healthcare, good schools, great air, happy people, Wayne Gretzky. Maybe a whole bunch of tenure-tracked academics are just Canadians? And it could be worse -- yes, we have Celine Dion, but better her than Bush